Perspectives

(092112)

Old or Young Earth —15 Billion Years in 6 Days

Questions:

Is the earth some six to ten thousand years old or is it four to five billions years
old?

Was
the genesis of the universe completed in days or over eons of time?

Is
it possible to get some 15 billion years to fit within six days?

Short
Answer:

The issue addressed
here is generally driven by a religious or otherwise academic interpretation
of the biblical text of Genesis. We have already covered the issue of origins
without entering this discussion. However, there are a couple of relevant
scientific points to examine in this context and so we include a brief consideration
for the age of the earth and universe.

An old earth might
be thought to invalidate a biblical genesis, yet that is potentially a fiction
and a rationalization. Conversely, we do not advocate ignoring dating techniques
that science can use with a high degree of reliability. Elsewhere, interesting
commentaries on both sides of the age issue point to the same biblical passages.
Yet a bit of critical thinking appears to quickly excuse many of the young
earth accounts. The assumption of a young earth, of some 6,000 to 10,000 years,
comes results in an earth and universe appearing to be many billions of years
old. This situation would create a reality based on an artifact—this
too suffers by a fiction. But why assume any uncertain premise when there
is a solution for a biblical six day account and a universe that is also many
billions of years old. The short answer is ... there is in fact potential
solution to the young/old earth dilemma! Einstein's relativity reveals how
15 billion years can fit within 6 days. This is detailed further in the following
discussion.

Consider
This:

The label ''young
earth creationist'' is used in media reports and by persons who do in fact
make a literal interpretation of the initial passages of the Book of Genesis.
Such an interpretation leaves us with a universe and earth literally made
within six 24 hour days. From genealogies and human histories within the biblical
text one is then left to consider the remaining time is equivalent to some
6 to 10 thousand years. At least that is one way of summarizing a young earth
perspective.

The young earth position
is routinely rejected by scientists who point to a number of evidences that
speak to an old earth. The stigma attached to the young earth position goes
further to the point of adding negative connotations to the word creation.
What the public is not told—the media fail here—is that there is
in fact a body of thinkers who read the same text but see an old earth position.
They sometimes offer the word empiricist in place of creationist,
because they also consider meaningful evidence for creation dovetails with
science. How this 'fit' can be observed deserves attentive investigation.
In fact, the Genesis text as written—being rather brief at that—requires
a bit of detective work for both the theologian and scientist alike.

The meaning of the
term creation deserves another look, as is reflected in the following:

Suppose
you do not accept the Darwinian picture of natural history, that is,
you do not believe that the vast panoply of life evolved through undirected
naturalistic processes. Presumably, then, you are a creationist. But
does this make you a young earth creationist? Ever since Darwin's Origin
Of Species Darwinists have cast the debate in these terms: either
you are with us, or you are a creationist, by which they mean a young
earth creationist. But of course it does not follow, logically or otherwise,
that by rejecting fully naturalistic evolution you automatically embrace
a literal reading of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Rejecting fully naturalistic
evolution does not entail excepting young earth creationism. The only
thing one can say for certain is that to reject fully naturalistic evolution
is to accept some form of creation broadly construed, that is, the belief
that God or some intelligent designer is responsible for life. Young
earth creation certainly falls under this broad construal of creation
but is hardly coextensive with it. Dembski (MC) Page 24

A Jewish
theologian, Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum (of Ariel Ministries), would tell you that the Hebrew words in Genesis combine the word
day with an ordinal, a number—'the first day,' ' the second day,' etc.
To his understanding the Hebrew itself must be read as there are six literal
24 hour days to creation of the Universe as revealed in the Genesis account.
Is this logical as well as literal?

Dr.
Hugh Ross, an astronomer (of Reasons to Believe) presents his analysis concerning Genesis and time in his writings
(e.g., The Fingerprint of God and in The Genesis Question - Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis.; see Book
List for references). He argues that the wording
of the biblical text allows for the word 'day' to relate to epochs of time.
Is this in violation of a sound interpretation of the Hebrew words?

But let's step back
a minute from the words creationist and evolutionist to consider
a point raised by a nuclear physicist, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, concerning time
and relativity. Might there be a way to pull a 15 billion year old rabbit
out of a 6 day old hat? Dr. Schroeder, with the help of Einstein's theory
of general relativity, makes calculations to explain how the rabbit is in
fact pulled out of the hat (also see link to related
feature article by Dr. Schroeder at the bottom of this page). The implications
here are for a reading of the Genesis account that is both literal and scientific,
but with an intelligent twist. That is, you must be thinking from two perspectives—offered
by Einstein's theory—that by relative points of view give both a days
long and a billions of years time-frame(s). We raise this to your attention
simply because we humans tend to get channeled in ruts of thought and are
little prepared for surprises. If Dr. Schroeder is right, there is an answer
to an age old riddle that satisfies a need for literal correctness and the
need for time to fit with all the scientific operations that astronomy, physics,
geology, chemistry, and biology require.

Dr.
Schroeder describes how the days of time—each 24 hours from our earthly
perspective, starting with the Big Bang—can be expansive periods
of time when one accounts for all this from a cosmic
perspective. For example, the biblical text is written from the perspective
of one standing on the Earth. But the understanding of creation time periods
should also be viewed from another vantage point—that being a view on
time from elsewhere in the Universe. This explanation may or may not be correct,
but the presentation makes logical sense. This uses relativity described by
Einstein and further shows that an old Universe of 15 billion years actually
fits within the six days of creation as described in the biblical text.

We
suggest entertaining Dr. Schroeder's thinking for a moment because this opens
a way to seeing science and Scripture work together. His book, 'The Science
of God' (see Book List for reference), gives a more full account of how the days of creation allow
for the literal interpretation that Dr. Fruchtenbaum sees and the position
advanced by Dr. Ross. And perhaps we are faced with a win-win situation all
around!

The
key to Dr. Schroeder's explanation is the shift from the expansive time frames
of the first six days down to the human perspective of a 24 hour day which
comes with the mention of the seventh day of creation. The time periods from
the first to sixth day collapse into shorter time frames (on the order of
billions of years or fraction thereof) and finally lock into the diurnal framework
we experience in 24 hour periods.

Dr. Ross draws on a
number of other perspectives to attain an appreciation for the age of the
universe in both a biblical and scientific context:

In Creation And Time I showed how a reexamination of the biblical
text, especially the Hebrew manuscripts and the writings of early church
scholars, more clearly and consistently supports the big bang model—namely,
an old-universe, old-earth interpretation of the text—than they
do any recent-creation scenario (i.e., one in which the universe is
only a few thousand years old). Ross (MC) Page
364

A young earth and young
universe scenario would turn science fact into artifact. That the universe
continually delivers ancient light to earth's doorstep would by some reasoning
end up the product of a recent creation that looks like a well aged universe.
That would be a created deception. And yet the science is eloquent and describes
an unfolding of time, making of atomic elements, and a beginning:

...
research into the relative abundances of various elements throughout
the cosmos. Since stars can synthesize only some of these elements,
an independent nuclear furnace must have generated the remainder. The
only plausible candidate for this quantity and quality of nuclear fusion
is the big bang itself, and only when the cosmos was between three and
four minutes old. The combined effects of the big bang and 15 billion
years of stellar burning results in exactly the abundance of the elements
we find in the universe. No other model comes close. Ross
(MC) Page 366

Meanwhile,
research dating the oldest stars, which are contained in globular clusters,
has advanced significantly. ... The mean age of the team derived from
such stars was 14.6 ± 1.3 billion years. Ross
(MC) Page 367

Note
this discussion is not a vain attempt to fit odd pieces together to make
an ancient text work in some roughshod fashion. A typical stumbling block
for creation scientists (i.e., young earth creationists) is the time issue.
To fit the creation of the Universe and all the physical features of the
Earth into the creation text never seemed to work. And this has always led
to a debate that goes no where. But we are not here to tell you the Earth
is 6,000 or 10,000 years old, but to say that what science tells us about
an old Earth can indeed fit with Genesis. We just need to look beyond some
of the classical presentations.

Quotations from "The Creation Hypothesis"
(CH) edited by J. P. Moreland and "Mere Creation" (MC) edited by William
A. Dembski are used by permission of InterVarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers
Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com All rights reserved. No portion of this material
may be used without permission from InterVarsity Press.

Excerpts
and links to Feature Articles:

''One of the most
obvious perceived contradictions between Torah and science is the age of
the universe. Is it billions of years old, like scientific data, or is it
thousands of years, like Biblical data? When we add up the generations of
the Bible, we come to 5758 years. Whereas, data from the Hub bell telescope
or from the land based telescopes in Hawaii, indicate the number at 15 billion
years.''

''In trying to resolve
this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends
in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available
is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world ...'' MORE on this, read: Dr. Gerald
Schroeder on the Age of Universe

Added Perspective:

We
don't suppose this consideration of relative time frames means everyone will
accept a biblical account of creation. But with support stemming from the
descriptions in feature articles that follow, we can use the word creation
in a less biased context. We can also look for the possible evidence for an
intelligence behind existence before making any assessment of who or what
the Designer might be. References to God or religion can be kept apart of
the majority of what we will look at here. Yet, considering the source of
intelligence at work in the backdrop of space and time may come to the surface
as you look through the window. For now, read on with the expectation of discovery.
Be skeptical if you must, but gather what you see to build a holistic view
within the window's larger frame. And once these many perspectives form a
picture, then take look at the mosaic formed by all that you see.

Writer / Editor: Dr. T. Peterson, Director,
WindowView.org

(062213)

The WindowView drops many of the typical presumptions to take another look. What does scientific data tell us if we start without assumptions? And ... how contiguous is science information if examined along with scriptural perspectives provided by the Bible? The Bible is the only religious or holy book we know of that is in fact consistent with science. While not a textbook, the Scriptures are either contradictory or complementary to scientific perspectives. Have you looked at these perspectives? To see 'Science and Scripture in Harmony' is to reveal life, reality, and your future.

For a general listing of books, visit the WindowView Book Page for: Science and Scripture .

References of Interest

Step Up To Life

Time spent looking ... through a window on life and choice ... brings the opportunity to see in a new light. The offer for you to Step Up To Life is presented on many of the web pages at WindowView. Without further explanation we offer you the steps here ... knowing that depending on what you have seen or may yet explore in the window ... these steps will be the most important of your life ...